[CHECKING] Propeller is unrealistic and bent prop discussion

You didnt find this one?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3803319&postcount=6

See attached files if you have not already.

Also, I'm sure the graphics guys could improve them even further, I am no pro in photoshop.

You didnt find this one?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3803319&postcount=6

 

See attached files if you have not already.

 

 

Also, I'm sure the graphics guys could improve them even further, I am no pro in photoshop.

I have your clean prop files in my mods. I just couldn't find the thread when I needed it yesterday. Wrong search terms.

damage to the propeller

damage to the propeller, when you get shot on the front, the propeller is endomagated, folded and punctured but you still fly well

Reported a few times now:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=277802

May I kindly suggest to all those in this thread that have never seen a prop from the cockpit to go out to your local flying club, spend 60 bucks and take a short flight with an instructor?

Not only will you notice that the prop disc is indeed almost completely invisible (unless sun is shining from behind), but you'll also have a very nice experience and who knows...maybe you'll decide to get a license :)

P.S. it would be nice to have an option in the settings to have a "cinematic" or "naked eye" prop option.

I was about to say, it's been decades since I've been in a Cessna or Piper Arrow, but I don't recall even being able to see the prop at all except a pale gray disc.

I agree, I prefer that they keep it subtle, even if they do go with a "bit" of flutter just for sense of movement. Either way, it would be nice if they could standardize their effect for "ALL" of their propeller aircraft.

?

Not only will you notice that the prop disc is indeed almost completely invisible (unless sun is shining from behind), but you'll also have a very nice experience and who knows...maybe you'll decide to get a license :)

And then what for those who can visually confirm the speed alterations etc?

You say they should come to visit your flight club or you pull some ad hominems?

And then what for those who can visually confirm the speed alterations etc?

 

You say they should come to visit your flight club or you pull some ad hominems?

But that's the thing, you can't see the prop... So if you said you can, you are most likely saying it to not admit you are wrong.

But that's the thing, you can't see the prop... So if you said you can, you are most likely saying it to not admit you are wrong.

You just made a claim that you know what I can see, and what I can't see....

Please provide evidence....

I have provided evidence (Andrews & Purves, 2005;Purves, Paydarfar, & Andrews, 1996;Van Rullen, Reddy, & Koch, 2005;Van Rullen, Zoefel, & Ilhan, 2014) that people can see it as it has been scientifically researched.

Now, please provide evidence that it is impossible by anyone.

You just made a claim that you know what I can see, and what I can't see....

Please provide evidence....

 

I have provided evidence (Andrews & Purves, 2005;Purves, Paydarfar, & Andrews, 1996;Van Rullen, Reddy, & Koch, 2005;Van Rullen, Zoefel, & Ilhan, 2014) that people can see it as it has been scientifically researched.

Now, please provide evidence that it is impossible by anyone.

The majority of humans do not see prop flicker. A few do but that is no reason to force it on everyone.

Classic case of an armchair expert arguing with people who have real world experience.

I spent a few days in a prop plane on a cross country flight and never noticed the propeller affecting my vision in any way. Recent DCS prop planes in VR look so bad, I feel fatigued after 5 minutes of looking at that flickering mess.

the problem lies in the fact, that too much modeling is based on videos, not personal experience. That's why we also have laser lines shooting from the cannons and guns...camera shutter and eye = not the same thing.

Good news is this isnt a problem internally with the new damage model, hopefully you will see it soon.

 

If you can please include a track replay it makes it easier to test if we can see that same examples as you are seeing.

 

thanks

 

* threads merged

You merged two threads, both having problems with the propellor, but still different topics.

One is about pop damage, the other about the general appearance of popeller textures in game.

Perhaps this video makes it clear. Yes it is in recorded in VR with motion reprojection (45fps), but this behaviour appears on flat screen with 100fps+ also.

Fox

Good news is this isnt a problem internally with the new damage model, hopefully you will see it soon.

 

If you can please include a track replay it makes it easier to test if we can see that same examples as you are seeing.

 

thanks

 

* threads merged

Can generate a video and track file of the "visual damage" this weekend and will upload. I haven't really noticed the prop as being very noticeable as far as regular flight with no damage. The only time I really get a sense of that is when the sun is directly behind me, at early morning angles and you can get some pretty intense flashing and glare . . . but I have no real world experience in if that is accurate or not.

New track, and vid of visual damage

@BIGNEWY

Here is the track file, miz file, and a vid.

Unfortunately, I had a great run with this track and miz, but wasn't recording, so I am including a vid from an earlier example that shows how the plane responds and flies even with prop blades bent back 90 deg with large holes in them.

Will attach vid after it renders at YouTube

visualdamage.trk

P47CaucasusStraf.miz

Thanks for the track, and nice bomb drop :)

 

 

It is still possible to fly with a bent prop,

 

Here are some war time examples, all made it back to the base.

 

I will try to reproduce missing prop issues

 

thanks

Wow, thanks! I had no idea it was still possible. I had a "hunch" it might be feasible, but at the same time, I just assumed it would be too catastrophic.

I haven't seen the "one blade" artifact since the last OB update. Performance seems unaffected by bent props, but I am a desk driver pilot, so no idea what that type of damage should "feel" like.

Thanks on the bomb drop, I have been working on the technique described by WWII protocol. Once you get the hang of it . . . why would you need fuzing! :megalol:

Did manage to grab vid later, protocol bomb drop for those not wanting to dig up the track file, happens right at start

And then what for those who can visually confirm the speed alterations etc?

Tell me (and be honest please): are you one of them? Did you fly in a prop-driven aircraft, sitting behind the prop, and did you see it with your own eyes, as you do in DCS?

If yes, you are part of a minority. Do you think a sim meant for the general public should visually represent propellers in a way that is realistic for most people, or for a minority?

Here's a fun fact: they color the tips of the blades so people can see the prop, ergo, unless they did so, the prop would be nearly invisible (as it is).

Thanks for the track, and nice bomb drop :)

 

 

It is still possible to fly with a bent prop,

 

Here are some war time examples, all made it back to the base.

 

I will try to reproduce missing prop issues

 

thanks

I wonder how the FM would handle one blade coming off. It should pretty much rip the engine out of its mountings.

Propeller improvements are reported, currently in review at the moment

 

 

 

Thank you

Can you confirm prop improvements will be for all aircraft or just the jug???

Why has this thread merged with one about the prop when it's bent? Not at all relevant to the propellor visibility issue.

You just made a claim that you know what I can see, and what I can't see....

Please provide evidence....

 

I have provided evidence (Andrews & Purves, 2005;Purves, Paydarfar, & Andrews, 1996;Van Rullen, Reddy, & Koch, 2005;Van Rullen, Zoefel, & Ilhan, 2014) that people can see it as it has been scientifically researched.

Now, please provide evidence that it is impossible by anyone.

Andrews & Purves, 2005: Is behind a paywall

Paydarfar, & Andrews, 1996: "As the frequency of stimulus element presentation continued to increase, these alternations persist until the velocity of the stimulus elements became too great to see them clearly, at which point reversals were no longer evident. Thus, the illusion of reversed rotation in continuous light is first observed at frequencies of 2-3Hz and continues to be elicited at frequencies up to at least 20 Hz."

Van Rullen, Reddy, & Koch, 2005: "We used wheels rotating at a temporal frequency (or spokealternation rate) of 10 and 7.5 Hz"

Van Rullen, Zoefel, & Ilhan, 2014: Conclusion:"... The periodicity of visual perception, in sum, is best described as an ongoing series of attentional cycles at approximately 7–13 Hz."

So if I see this right, it does not reinforce your statement. Let's take the biggest presented range of 2Hz - 20Hz per stimulus element.

Bf109K4 gear-ratio 1:1.685. 3 blades mean 3 stimulus elements per 1 rotation.

-> 2/3Hz - 20/3Hz Range

-> Propeller RPM: 40 - 400

-> Engine RPM: 67,4 - 674

So when the engine is above 674RPM(maybe a few more, but not significantly more RPM), this effect is -according to your sources- not visible anymore: "As the frequency of stimulus element presentation continued to increase, these alternations persist until the velocity of the stimulus elements became too great to see them clearly, at which point reversals were no longer evident"

(I simplified it a bit, as the blade-tips get blurried quicker than the blade-root, but I don't think this changes the whole situation)

Fox